Tegmark's Mathematical Universe

Here's a copy of an article I just submitted to vixra.org which happens to be very relevant to TEGMARK'S MATHEMATICAL UNIVERSE -

title - USING SPACE TRAVEL, T TAURI STARS, E=mc^2 AND TERRESTRIAL HONEYBEES TO CONCLUDE THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM IS MODIFIED GRAVITY

author - Rodney Bartlett

abstract -

Starting with today's generation of rocket thrust by means of the energy-mass relation (as in chemical rockets or ion propulsion), this essay proposes thrust generation through the gravity-electromagnetism relationship (modifying string theory to explain G-EM). Then the statement "T Tauri stars don't generate energy through fusion but rather as a result of gravitational collapse" takes us to m=E/c^2, Einstein's E=mc^2 solved for mass. It also takes us to the concept that mass does not create gravity, but gravity produces mass as well as the other fundamental forces (this section includes Dark Energy and Dark Matter). The essay ends with "The paragraphs above show that the magnetic waves are actually modifications of gravitational waves. When they encounter the iron oxide in the bees, m=E/c^2 describes how the interacting forces/energies produce a tiny amount of what we call mass, causing the iron oxide to swell."

content -

THRUST

In discussing ion propulsion in which thrust is generated by escaping plasma, "rocketman" (Discover Magazine - May 2014) emphasized the relation of energy and mass. Another way of producing thrust is to emphasize the relation of gravity (G) and electromagnetism (EM). The relation of energy to mass is famously expressed by Einstein's famous formula E=mc^2: E (energy) equals m (mass) multiplied by c^2 (the velocity of light squared). The relation of gravity to electromagnetism can be expressed as G=EM/c^2*c^2.

A 2009 electrical-engineering experiment at America's Yale University by electrical engineer Hong Tang and his team demonstrated that, on silicon-chip and transistor scales, light can attract and repel itself like electric charges or magnets. This is the "optical force". For 30 years until his death in 1955, Albert Einstein worked on his Unified Field Theory with the aim of uniting electromagnetism (light is one form of this) and gravitation.

Gravity is the warping of space-time, and it's composed of gravitons at the quantum level. Uniting G and EM to achieve GEM means the microscopic components of space-time warps called gravitons could mimic the Optical Effect and be attracted together, thereby eliminating distance between spaceships and stars/galaxies (this is similar to traversing a wormhole between two folds in space). When Franklin Chang Diaz has finished work on the VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, he might like to design a spacecraft that works according to the Einstein-Yale principle.

STRINGS AND G-EM

Suppose electromagnetic photons consist of a particular series of 1s and 0s, while gravitational gravitons are made of a different sequence of 1s and 0s. This would help answer Einstein's 1951 question, "Fifty years of pondering have not brought me any closer to answering the question, what are light quanta (photons)?" (Discover Magazine - March 2014, p.31) It also suggests how, as Einstein believed, gravitation and electromagnetism may be related. Finally, it returns us to Professor Max Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe", and his suggestion that the physical world is one big mathematical object (the binary digits of 1 and 0 used in electronics comprise the base-2 form of maths).

String theory suggests everything's ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in four dimensions - "Workings of the Universe" by Time-Life Books (1991). We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a two-dimensional program called a Mobius loop - or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current. Combination of the 2 loops' currents requires connection of the two as a four-dimensional Klein bottle (combining 2 Mobius loops in the right way does indeed form a Figure-8 Klein bottle). This connection can be made with the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons (force-carrying particles) being ultimately composed of the binary digits of 1 and 0 depicting pi, e, в€љ2 etc.; and fermions (matter particles) being given mass by bosons interacting in "wave packets" - into an infinite number of Figure-8 Klein bottles which are, in fact, "subuniverses" (we live in a 13.8 billion year old subuniverse). Union of space and time makes the infinite universe eternal - and binary digits fill in gaps and adjust edges of the Klein bottles to fit surrounding subuniverses (similar to manipulation of images by computers). Slight "imperfections" in the way the Mobius loops fit together determine the precise nature of the binary-digit currents (the producers of space-time, gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, the nuclear strong and weak forces) and thus of exact mass, charge and quantum spin.

T TAURI STARS AND m=E/c^2

"T Tauri stars don't generate energy through fusion but rather as a result of gravitational collapse" (Astronomy magazine - June 2013, p.73) and

"A T Tauri star is a stage in a star's formation and evolution right before it becomes a main sequence star. This phase occurs at the end of the protostar phase, when the gravitational pressure holding the star together is the source of all its energy. T Tauri stars don't have enough pressure and temperature at their cores to generate nuclear fusion ..." Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/24299/types-of-stars/#ixzz31ZZIW41U.

The highest speed possible is Lightspeed. Physically speaking, it cannot be multiplied. Einstein himself proved this. The equation E=mc^2 can be considered a degenerate form of the mass-energy-momentum relation for vanishing momentum. Einstein was very well aware of this, and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study. The version of the equation applicable here may be E=m/c^2*c^2. Dividing by c^2 then multiplying by c^2 cancels, leaving E=m. That is, in this case, (gravitational) energy = (T Tauri) matter.

m = E/c^2 is E=mc^2 when the formula is solved for mass. E=mc^2 means a tiny amount of mass can be converted into a very large amount of energy. Similarly, m=E/c^2 means a very large amount of energy is converted into a tiny amount of mass. E (energy) is measured in joules (J), m is the mass in kilograms (kg; 1 kg = approx. 2.2 pounds), and c is the speed of light (about 186,282 miles/299,792.458 kilometres per second) measured in metres per second (m/s or ms^-1). According to "E=mc^2, Solving the Equation" (http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Equation.htm#.UrY7RdIW2bv), "So from 1kg of matter, any matter, we get 9 x 1016 joules of energy. Writing that out fully we get: 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules (enough to power a 100 watt lightbulb for 28,519,279 years). From gravitational energy equivalent to a 100 watt lightbulb burning for 28,519,279 years, only a kilogram of matter is formed.

GRAVITY FORMS MASS AND OTHER FUNDAMENTAL FORCES

(INCLUDES DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER)

If space-time (whose warping is gravity) forms mass, there could be "currents" of space-time flowing in the "oceans" between the galaxies. Space-time would form the matter in the galaxies, and it would form the Earth/objects on this planet. How? By some of the currents of space-time or gravity which pass the solar system's outer boundary being diverted towards the massive Sun's centre (just as some of the waves passing an island are refracted toward the shore by the island's mass). Along their course, the refracted gravitational waves are concentrated 10^24 times in the intense warping we call matter.

When gravity waves concentrate to form matter, gravity travels from external to matter: pushes against matter (repels). Repulsive gravity is dark energy*. Successive waves are re-radiated at unconcentrated** strength from matter to external (opposite action to repelling wave) and attract - it must be remembered that attraction is merely a matter of perspective, since Einstein showed that attraction of two bodies of matter actually results from space-time's curvature pushing bodies. Calculating time using imaginary numbers makes distinctions between time and space disappear. Hypothetical negative 5th-dimension is described by imaginary numbers and motions of its negative particles (dark matter) are time, since time can be calculated using imaginary numbers. So imaginary numbers eliminate distinctions between space-time and 5th dimension, permitting dark matter to exist as "ordinary" matter's scaffold.

* Feeble gravity might push galaxy clusters apart in the same way that feeble sunlight propels a solar sail. In the 1970s, Robert Forward proposed two beam-powered propulsion schemes using either lasers or masers to push giant sails to a significant fraction of the speed of light. These vastly magnify the power of sunlight via Light (or Microwave) Amplfication by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. How is gravity's power boosted? When Einstein penned E=mc^2, he used c (c^2) to convert between energy units and mass units. The conversion number is 90,000,000,000 (300,000 km/s x 300,000 km/s) which approx. equals 10^11. After gravity forms matter, successive gravity waves are, via gravitational lensing, concentrated 10^24 times (to 10^25, weak nuclear force's strength). Then they're further magnified by the matter's density to achieve electromagnetism's strength (10^36 times gravity's strength) i.e. 10^25 is multiplied by Einstein's conversion factor [10^11] and gives 10^36. Successive gravity waves are absorbed by the matter and radiated as longer-wavelength waves (both as electromagnetic waves - possibly gamma rays, or a microwave background - and as gravitational waves which have lost 10^24 of their energy or strength (and are labelled "10^1".) "If space comes from bits" (specifically, the energy responsible for the bits is converted into space), "then so does gravity (warping of space)." So as more and more energy is invested in bit production, more and more space and repelling gravity result. This causes accelerating expansion within the universe, as discovered in 1998 by Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess. (Suppose the unit ascribed to concentrated gravity's strength of 10^25 is the hertz (Hz), a frequency of one cycle per second. If a gamma ray is emitted from an atom, that typically accounts for more than 10^19 Hz of the 10^25 Hz. The remainder's accounted for by radiation of gravitational and other electromagnetic frequencies.)

** Or, possibly, at relatively unconcentrated strength (the number 10^1 in the paragraph above would refer to this relatively unconcentrated strength while a strength that's totally unconcentrated and not magnified at all could simply be termed "1"). The gravity waves from deep space would push Jupiter (for example) towards the Sun, while waves from the opposite direction push it away from the Sun. They'd thus cancel and maintain the planet's orbit (in the short term). Over billions of years, Einstein's paper ("Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure of the Elementary Particles?" - a 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences) implies that planets gradually move farther away because gravity waves that first encounter the sun would help form the solar mass. They'd be diverted to the Sun's centre - during this journey, the increasing density would concentrate and magnify the gravitational waves. Therefore, they'd be more powerful when they emerge from the Sun's opposite side, and gradually push planets farther away (this happens whether planets are orbiting on one side of the sun or on its opposite side). According to "Celestial Mechanics & Dynamical Astronomy", Volume 90, Issue 3-4, pp. 267-288 by Krasinsky, G. A. and Brumberg, V. A., the distance between Sun and Earth is growing by approx. 15 centimetres per century.

BEES

"20 Things You Didn't Know About... Animal Senses" by Molly Loomis (Discover Magazine - May 2014) says, "Worker honeybees navigate using rings of paramagnetic iron oxide in their abdomens that swell or shrink depending on outside magnetic changes, allowing the insects to find their way home by following changes in the Earth's magnetic fields." As the Chesterfield and District Beekeepers Association says at http://www.cdbka.org.uk/index.php/bee-keeping/47-members-beekeeping-questions/111-question-no-5-from-d-h-14-10-2012,"The researchers have found that in a bee, these miniature paramagnetic particles are of natural iron oxide and are aligned either side by side or end to end; and are attached to their respective parent cell walls in the bees' abdomen. As the bee flies around, these cells are affected by the earths' magnetic field due to the bees' position/relationship to the said magnetic field. These particles either swell or shrink and make subtle changes to the shape of the cells themselves. There are nerves attached to these cells and these cells act like miniature compasses, constantly sending information to the bees' brain identifying its current position."

The paragraphs above show that the magnetic waves are actually modifications of gravitational waves. When they encounter the iron oxide in the bees, m=E/c^2 describes how the interacting forces/energies produce a tiny amount of what we call mass, causing the iron oxide to swell.

That the Universe is completely described by mathematics is indeed an old idea, however Pythagoras and Galileo did not provide enough arguments why it is so! It is more like a postulate in their philosophy. It is easy to say that the Universe is mathematical but we need epistemological and ontological basis for such claims. I saw in your website the link to ontic structural realism (OSR) so I guess you are familiar with it. OSR indeed provides good arguments about the underlying invariant structure of all our theories.

I think Immanuel Kant is the first philosopher to provide the strong arguments why the Universe is described by mathematics. If you are familiar with history of philosophy, Kant reacted to the famous debate between Rationalists (Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza) and Empiricists (Locke and especially David Hume). Rationalists claim that the source of knowledge is reason and innate ideas, while empiricist claim that the source of knowledge is experience through the senses. Both are right from their perspective. Kant said that to speak about innate ideas in our mind which ground mathematics, metaphysics (a priori knowledge) as rationalists did is lazy business. David Hume has shown that everything comes from experience but he had problems with establishing mathematics on firm ground because maths speak of experience a priori. He could not explain how mathematics is possible! Kant tried to defend this a priori knowledge (mathematics, theoretical physics) and so-called synthetic a priori judgments. That's why I have used Kant to model our cognitive framework (and the Universe as it appears to us) as a quantum computer defined on a grid of cells. I claim that this grid is invariant structure within which all our thoughts, knowledge and theories originate. The structure OSR seeks.

Kant had influenced such mathematicians as Henri Poincaré and David Hilbert. In philosophy of mathematics Kant belongs to intuitionist school. It is also interesting to study the logicist school, that is Frege, Russell. I know that you are involved with FQXi. I claim that we will not understand ultimate reality unless we view everything as a system of mathematics, theoretical physics, philosophy of science and cognitive science. Cognitive science is of absolute importance in understanding ultimate reality because all our thoughts about the world originate in our brain. I know that you come from strictly scientific background but philosophy of science, philosophy of mind cannot be left out if you want to understand the ultimate reality.

It seems that you have buried the philosophy of corporeal nature. This is the true purpose of proper metaphysics of corporeal nature - to assist mathematics and physics. They should go together. It does not matter that people did not know about the Higgs boson or the mathematical description of general relativity 200 years ago. What Kant and Hegel knew is fundamentals - how our knowledge about the world in general is possible. If you know the roots of your knowledge, the epistemological basis of mathematics and physics, everything else is just details. To understand ultimate reality we must understand how we understand things in the first place! That is, we must have the picture of our cognitive faculties in general. This yields the big picture of the Universe how it appears to us.

That's why I took Kant who asked and provided answers in his work to the questions: ''how is mathematics possible?''. ''How is physics possible?''. ''How is metaphysics as science possible?''.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Framework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_Kants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

Darius Malys,

Perhaps you are aware of the likelihood that the 'unit cell', 'Leibniz monad', 'cellular automaton', 'the unit of space geometry - the point' are the same thing. I will read your long paper later - 66 pages. I also wrote an essay last year on similar matter and community members made some beneficial comments.

Regards,

Akinbo

Hi, thanks. Yes they are all the same thing. I will read your paper too.

What is the final word on this?

If reality is a manifestation of Mathematics, or the patterning found therein, does it not make sense that what is most central to Physics about Math is that which is most essential to Math itself, or is in some way invariant? It comes to mind that there are precisely four normed division algebras, R, C, H, and O. Also, objects like E8 and the Mandelbrot Set seem to validate the External Reality Hypothesis, by existing apart from our discovery of them. But if nature is shaped by these mathematical objects as Lisi and I have suggested (respectively), then there are a host of other mathematical objects and invariant forms in the structure of Math - which also influence nature. The thing is; we first discovered a bunch of these things over the last 100 years, but there remain other invariants of Math yet to be discovered. However; we must assume that nature has already put them to use.

Phil Gibbs has a very nice concept to help filter all of this content, which he calls the theory of theories. Briefly; this idea states that all Mathematics applicable to Physics takes a role in shaping reality, where the entirety of all the theoretical bases for a given tendency contribute to its reality in a kind of path integral which grants physical reality to those notions whose basis is strongest. And of course; this would be meaningless if there was no internal patterning to unify the structure of Math, but the fact that Math is a congruent entity which hangs together on its own engenders a meaningful basis for Physics. In this sense the Mathematical Univese Hypothesis is a no-brainer. It is absolutely true, given that we include all of Math, even the part we have not yet discovered. But indeed; this rests on the ERH being true, in the sense that Plato envisioned - where eternal ideal absolutes shape the ephemeral reality - and on Math being that external reality.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I could point out..

The existence of the Octonions implies E8, which is simply O x O. Similarly the existence of Complex numbers somehow implies the Mandelbrot Set, which in effect illustrates their properties. But it could also be said that E8 is the culmination of the octonions, or that the Mandelbrot Set is the reason for the complex numbers to exist.

It is better, in some ways, not to imagine that such chicken/egg questions yield a final answer, but rather to understand that each is a piece of the puzzle, and that all of the invariant forms are important cornerstones of Mathematics, which serve to create meaningful order which can engender Physics. So I'll leave off there.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Taking things to the next level...

It is often imagined that things proceed from simpler forms to more complex ones, but if what counts is algorithmic complexity in a universe born of Math, this may be backwards. An idea I've played around with, that Fred Diether articulated quite well a while back, is that higher-order numbers are more basic - because they require fewer rules to define. S15 and the Sedenions may offer the closest thing possible to a blank slate, as there is no preferred direction or orientability and all 16 dimensions are on an equal footing. This is sort of like Math without rules.

But if we assert that our number system must be alternative, we get the Octonions; if we assert the algebra must be associative, we get the Quaternions; if we add the rule that it must be commutative, we are left with the Complex numbers; and adding another restriction gets us to the Reals. This makes the Octonions more fundamental, as well as more general, while the Quaternions, Complex, and Reals, are the product of adding more conditions, leaving a more restricted set of possibilities that are successively restricted cases of the higher-order types - which are algorithmically more basic.

All the Best,

Jonathan

MATHEMATICS ARE YOU

You are part of life, the Universe and everything. You and that greater whole have to be grounded in some fundamental bedrock that connects everything into a logical and unified whole. Most would say that's the role of the laws, relationships and principles of physics. But there's a deeper level yet. Mathematics are the ultimate foundation that make physics a logical (if not quite yet unified) whole. So ultimately life, the Universe and everything is based on maths. Maths is ultimately your reality. It's what makes you tick!

The Universe IS just mathematics according to physicist/cosmologist Professor Max Tegmark (Department of Physics, MIT). It's called the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH)" or the "Ultimate Ensemble", one of those proposals for a 'Theory of Everything' (TOE), that ultimate theoretical equation so beloved by physicists that describes life, the Universe and everything. It will be so concise that it can be printed on just the front of a tee-shirt. Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis is: our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically. That is, the universe IS mathematics in a well-defined sense. Mathematics has an external reality, and since everything is built from the ground (i.e. - mathematics) up, everything ultimately is mathematics and therefore can be expressed in that ultimate theoretical TOE tee-shirt equation.

Mathematics is the universal language. Whether you're a Frenchman or a Chinaman; an Englishman or even ufonauts like those alien LGM (Little Grey Men); a Klingon or a Romulan; you understand the Pythagorean Theorem and the quadratic equation; topology and the calculus.

The most fundamental science is physics. That's the bedrock on which chemistry is formatted. The earth and space sciences are in turn supported and explained by those two building blocks. All of those collectively form the foundations of the biological sciences, which in turn support anthropology, psychology and the other social and behavioural sciences. Even economics and the arts have ultimate foundations in mathematics.

But what supports physics? Mathematics, that's what. Ultimately that's where it all begins. The Universe (including life and everything) is mathematics. You exist inside of geometry. You are receiving information about life, the Universe and everything encoded in mathematics; it takes mathematics to reveal the information. You cannot come to terms with understanding space and time, matter and energy, and the four (or more) fundamental forces that govern the Universe, hence ultimately you and your surroundings, without resorting to maths.

Your day is constantly filled with how much, how many, and how fast - mathematical relationships. 'Where' is maths; 'when' is maths; 'what' is often pure maths. You may not be a physicist, but economics probably rules your roost. There's gambling (even if just on the stock market or getting away with running a red light) involving probability theory. Every day in every way you add and subtract and multiply and divide numbers. You even do fractions! Your calculator may crunch the numbers, but you press the buttons.

Music and sounds in general play a massive role in our lives. Acoustics, harmonics, sound waves, and the like are all expressible in, and based around, mathematics. Ditto for navigation and GPS and related.

Now think of the mathematics supporting the physics (or its applied alter ego, engineering) behind your home, your transport, your entertainment, your comfort conveniences, and what goes into making you able to get through your day. What holds all your bits and pieces together and holds you to the ground yet doesn't allow you to go through it can be expressed in equations? What mathematical physics fuels the sun that ultimately gives you your daily bread? What mathematical physics keeps your home planet a goldilocks planet, not too far away from, or too close to the sun with an atmosphere over your head? 24/7/52 you are governed by time and space; matter and energy, all of which have reality as mathematical constructs. And where would sports teams*, NASA and the military be without the basic mathematics behind the basic physics that guide and govern their activities?

There's another kind of mathematical universe apart from the one promoted by Max Tegmark, though maybe they are actually one and the same. That's my hypothesis. There's another way of looking at this. There's another possible, even probable, Mathematical Universe - the Simulated Universe. Could these two universes be one and the same?

Firstly, why is a Simulated Universe our probable Universe? Well, for the exact same reason that while you suspect there is just one real Universe, the one real Universe the really real you lives in, you would be aware that Planet Earth in that really real Universe has an intelligent human population that has evolved computer technologies and has created thousands upon thousands of virtually real simulations, both for the purposes of instruction (say astronaut flight training) as well as for entertainment (video games). The ratio of virtually real landscapes to really real landscapes is therefore multi-thousands to one.

Further, in most cases there are thousands upon thousands of copies of those simulations, a sort of Multiverse, where say a character in one video game has thousands of 'clones' because there are thousands of copies of that game. That character of course couldn't meet any of his or her or its identical copies, which is probably a good thing. However, if you could ask that character whether they felt they were really real or simulated, they would of course answer really real not knowing or suspecting that a human being was their creator and the creator of their simulated landscape.

Go one level up from Planet Earth and humanity's numerous simulation creations and extrapolate and the odds are high that someone or something out there, a Supreme Programmer, created a simulation that's our Universe. There are numerous copies of this video game simulation called say "The Life and Times of Planet Earth" created by this unknown and probably unknowable Supreme Programmer, and thus there are really numerous copies of you, but fortunately only one copy per game! Your day-to-day reality is just a virtual reality because you don't really exist in the way you think you do.

Another way of thinking about the numerous copies of the video game "The Life and Times of Planet Earth" is that this amounts to the concept of Parallel Universes. In another copy of "The Life and Times of Planet Earth" another copy of you has led a different life and lifestyle to the you that exists in your copy or version of "The Life and Times of Planet Earth".

Now, the interesting bit, IMHO, is what if our Universe or Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe which is also our Universe was just a Simulated Universe; a virtual reality computer software generated Universe? Well, what is computer software? Computer software is just bits and bytes, ones and zeros, binary code, or in other words mathematics. You can construct life, the Universe and everything via mathematics by constructing or programming appropriate computer software. Ultimately a video game 'Universe' or landscape is just mathematics. An astronaut's training simulator is just a mathematical construction. If you are a computer software generated, simulated being, inside a virtual reality, then you are a mathematical construction.

What's the appeal of a Simulated Universe? It explains a lot that's currently unexplainable.

Why are all electrons (or positrons or up and down quarks, etc.) identical? Because all electrons have the exact same binary code, that's why. Forget vibrating strings as the reason. String theory isn't even in the hunt. Any and every anomaly is explained as easily as "run program" as there is no such thing as the concept of impossibility in a simulation or a video game. Joshua can indeed make the Sun and the Moon stand still in the heavens! You can even have a virtual reality afterlife! In fact, for the physicist, a Simulated Universe scenario should be pleasing since in fact there are two separate sets of incompatible mathematical software running the Simulated Universe - gravity software and quantum physics software. I bring this up because physicists have been trying to marry those two branches of physics for decades now into a Theory of Everything, and haven't scored a run yet.

In conclusion, our Universe is a Mathematical Universe; a Simulated Universe is a Mathematical Universe. Therefore, it's possible or even probable as I noted above, that our Universe is a Simulated Universe and you therefore live in a virtual reality landscape that exists as a mathematical construct!

*There's an entire book, for example, devoted to the physics of baseball, and no doubt many "How To Play..." books focus on the physics behind the scenes and the mathematics behind the physics. Baseball can be reduced to pure mathematics apart from the mathematical physics relating to bat and ball, which will come as little surprise to most baseball fans, players and managers. There's percentages this; statistics that, all of which make baseball about the most mathematical oriented sports on the ground.

I argue that the Universe is fundamentally logic, not maths. What do you think?

As Wittgenstein puts it: ''6.22 The logic of the world, which is shown in tautologies by the propositions of logic, is shown inequations by mathematics.''

http://www.academia.edu/8991727/Phenomenal_World_as_an_Output_of_Cognitive_Quantum_Grid_Theory_of_Everything_using_Leibniz_Kant_and_German_Idealism

In order to perform any mathematics, one must first have a surface upon which one can depict symbols of value. This surface need automatically destroys all mathematical logic. For instance, if one inserts a 1 anywhere on the surface, one is indicating that the surface has no value even though the surface obviously covers a greater area than the symbolic 1 does.. When the mathematician inserts a zero on the seemingly valueless blank surface, he creates a beguiling abstraction that has nothing to do with reality. In effect, the mathematician is trying to organize ordinary human triadic perception. There is 1. There is 0. They can be represented on a surface that has no value. This translates into: There is Heaven. There is Hell. There is Purgatory. There is the Id. There is the Ego. There is the Super-ego. Unfortunately, although there is indubitably real quanta, there is no real nothing, therefore there cannot be a anything else but quanta wherever one looks.

Joe Fisher

Dear Akinbo,

Quanta has to be eternal.

Joe Fisher

Dear Joe,

As I just told Jim in a post, unless the Universe exists eternally, Quanta can perish. Quanta cannot outlive the universe or exist before the creation of the universe.

Regards,

Akinbo

You are absolutely correct Akimbo. Quantum singularity has to be eternal. The mathematical duality of zero and 1 is utterly illogical. And for physicists to pretend that NOTHING exploded in the Big Bang a finite time ago which obliterated all none of nothingness and produced all all of somethingness is utter codswallop.

Joe Fisher

You assume quanta exist. That assumption is only a necessary, not sufficient convention.

The only thing I know is that I exist and so do you Thomas.

Joe Fisher

how do you know?

Because it is impossible not to know.

So knowing and existence are identical?

It seems that Max Tegmark is equating mathematics with patterns of information that comprise the external world.

However, an interpretation of such patterns could only exist relative to a conscious mind perceiving them.

I must be misunderstanding something since this theory appears to contradict itself, as a static reality would need to change in order to create any illusions in the first place.